A leading proponent of legislation that cracks down on the delivery and sale of high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition said his proposal will get a vote in the Senate Executive Committee today at 1 p.m.

Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, said SB1002 “strikes a proper balance” between limiting the damage that high-capacity magazines can cause and protecting Second Amendment rights. […]

With the latest amendment, law-abiding citizens who currently own these high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds would not be affected by this bill, Kotowski said. That was one of the bigger hiccups in a similar proposal that failed in the House earlier this year. It lacked a grandfather clause to allow people to keep ones they already own.

The legislation also increases prison sentences for sale or delivery of such magazines, Kotowski said.

I purchased a pistol recently (my first as an adult) which came with two standard magazines. One was 13 rounds, the other was 16 rounds.

To my eyes, anyway, the gun manufacturers appear to be creating a situation on the ground that makes large capacity mags a reality everywhere they are still legal. Frankly, I don’t care whether the mags are 10 or 20 rounds. So far, I’m just using it for recreational target practice at the local firing range. More rounds per magazine means I have to reload fewer times. But really it’s not that big of a deal. Range rental is cheap here. The extra few minutes isn’t crucial.

@Rich
The thing is that handguns have had more than 10 rounds since 9mm ammo became somewhat standard… I have an OLD S&W model 59 that was made the year I was born… 1972. Its has its FACTORY mags from 40+ years ago that are 14 rounds… This isnt manufacturer thing where for the last 10 years they have been pushing this. This came from shooters asking for smaller round, higher capacity guns.

Politicians act as if this is something new because the non-gun owning public doesnt know that these mags have been standard since the 60s and 70s… they just started the “high capacity” thing as a made up term.

Selecting an arbitrary number like 10 or 7 or 15 rounds in a mag is silly and based on the “good idea fairy” coming along to these Pols.

Will police officers be exempt? I can’t think of any standard sized handguns like Glock, Sig, H&K, S&W, or others that would comply with 10 or fewer rounds. They all seem like 12 to 17 rounds from the factory.

@Kevin… but statistically what impact will this have to active shooters? in almost every case of a shooter its law enforcement, security or someone armed that stops them or causes them to off themselves. That sicko Lanza reloaded numerous times. And the VT shooter hand nothing but 10 round magazines… He reloaded what? 18 times I think.

The bill does not really grandfather as there is no prohibition on possession. It merely says you cannot sell, deliver or tranfer large cap. magazines in Illinois. Go out of state to buy and you are golden.

The grandfather clause is difficult- magazines lack serial numbers or any specific identifying information. Confiscation would not go so well.

It’s arguable whether this would do anything but screw over firearms collectors and range enthusiasts. Would someone intent on committing a mass shooting really say “darn, I can’t buy a large magazine. There goes my plan!” Of course not, they will jump the border and buy it somewhere else or make their own.

When can we start focusing on the real issues that cause tragedies, like mental health and economic development?

Instead we have silly laws like in NY where you can own a 10 round magazine… but may only load it with 7 bullets. Wow I feel so much safer!

I think that the 10 round magazine clips are enough. The mags that hold more than ten rounds should be for military only. How many large capacity mags have been sold in the last 10 years? A lot I would think. I am fortunate to live in a rural area where I do not have to go to a firing range to shoot and just take the time to reload my magazine clips. As Henry said, if they are going to grandfather in the larger ones why bother. But it would stop any more from coming into circulation.

And how do you know whether someone had a high-capacity magazine prior to the effective date? If they buy it in another state and carry it back will that be illegal as well and if it is illegal how would it be proven? Does not seem enforceable in a number of ways.

How are they going to prove that a mag is pre or post ban? It’s not like they are dated. Another worthless piece of legislation. How about concentrating on efforts to reduce the pension mess or increase the job markets here in Illinois.

Messing with mag limits will do nothing to deter criminals. You want to reduce crime, get a good concealed carry bill passed.

In Chicago it is illegal to own any assault weapons (under the strictest definition in the nation). You also can’t own shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds, or any detachable magazine for any guns with a capacity over 12 rounds.

I’m so happy that there are no big magazines on our streets and I can rest assured knowing my family is totally safe from any and all gun violence! The rest of the state should be just like Chicago in this respect!

Ok, a magazine is basically a container with a spring. If the (a) container, and (b) the spring are purchased separately, with “some assembly required”, doesn’t this all become pretty meaningless?

What are our Technological Luddites in the Illinois legislature going to do when the next generation (or two) of 3-D printers come out? Or better yet, when the next gen of low cost laser gen fabrication tools come out (now that the patents are expiring). Just download the digital production files and you will be good to go.

===
I think that the 10 round magazine clips are enough. The mags that hold more than ten rounds should be for military only.
===

I think Anon’s post from 12:20PM explains why this mentality just doesn’t work in reality.

I know the argument is overused and trite, but the bad guys don’t pay attention to the law. The question isn’t “is it enough” to repel a would-be unarmed attacker. The issue is “what’s common for the potentially armed criminal breaking into the home”? If it’s common for the bad guy to have extended magazines, then people should be allowed to have a similar amount of firepower to counteract that.

The reasons we don’t allow individuals to own grenades or bazookas for home defense is that it’s not reasonable to think that home invaders will be armed to the point where those high explosive weapons are necessary. But with the common nature of high capacity magazines being what it is—including the street weapons that bad guys use—I think it’s reasonable to allow people to have high capacity magazines for home defense as well.

And Judgment Day @ 12:24pm has a great point as well. What happens when these 3D printers really go into high gear?

NO… the speedlimit signs ban an action. No one is calling for banning cars that can do more than 100 or 55 or 75 or whatever. Hell “who needs a corvette”. But if the guy isnt doing anything illegal in the corvette we dont ban it.

By that same concept you could drive a dodge neon and get a ticket for going over the speedlimit.

Folks, I’ll say it again. THIS BILL DOES NOT BAN THE POSSESSION OF LARGE CAP. MAGAZINES IN ILLINOIS. It only bans the sale tranfer or delivery in Illinois. The exemptions provide that police agencies and others can still buy in Illinois.

If you don’t put in a grandfather clause you are essentially taking something from citizens they bought legally. It will raise the level of scrutiny the courts will apply as opposed to just saying you can’t buy them from here on out.

Apparently the people in the legislature can’t read. The reason the conceal and carry ban went down is the lack of evidence to support it. There is no evidence that a guy with 10-9 round mags can’t do as much harm as a guy with 5 18 round mags. So you just have another constitutional violation with no evidence it accomplishes anything.

So when I buy my next pistol or need to replace a mag its illegal to buy one over 10 rounds. Got it.

Its a defacto ban and of course “only bans the sale transfer or delivery ” means I cant sell any of my pistols or rifles to anyone else with the mags… They have now made legal property of mine either worthless or priceless, depending on how you look at it.

Ron, if you need a high cap. magazine you would need to go out of state. You could also sell yours provided they went out of state. I don’t in any way support this bill, just want to make sure folks know what it does.

I hate bills like this. This is a distraction and symbolic attempt to “do something” about gun violence but will have absolutely no impact other than allowing sponsors to claim they “took action.”

Sorry to say it, but unless it happens at the Federal level, magazine limits, AW bans and other state-level attempts are just gimmicks. This will generate a fight, and maybe that’s the goal, but it won’t solve any problems in the real world.

I agree that banning “high capacity” magazines will not have much of an impact on stemming gun violence for a variety of reasons mentioned above. (grandfathered in mags, lax laws in other states, etc). However, the legislation is a necessary first step because it sets a precedent that this state and this country needs. It is time to start holding gun manufactures accountable for their role in gun violence in the U.S.

I am avid hunter and gun enthusiast, and I strongly believe in the second amendment. That said, the NRA does not speak for me and -in my opinion- not for much of its membership either. For example, a vast majority of gun owners support thorough background checks on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm. The NRA, however, opposes this idea even though the vast majority of gun owners and the public at large supports it. Why? Because the NRA is heavily funded by gun manufactures. It does not lobby for gun owners, it lobby’s on behalf of gun manufactures - who naturally want no regulation of any kind.

In order to seriously address gun violence, the US needs federal gun laws that hold manufactures accountable and that thoroughly screens and tracks and all firearms sales. (States can not solve this problem) That will never happen, however, unless we can get past all the BS in the gun regulation debate. No one is going to take my guns away from me, so lets talk about ways can reduce the danger guns pose to our society. High capacity magazines ban is a great idea, too bad it could never make it through the current Congress. But if it makes it through the IL GA, then its a good start, even though it is just a baby step in the right direction….

—
I agree that banning “high capacity” magazines will not have much of an impact on stemming gun violence for a variety of reasons mentioned above. (grandfathered in mags, lax laws in other states, etc). However, the legislation is a necessary first step because it sets a precedent that this state and this country needs
—

Exactly why gun guys say this is just incrementalism. You just said this wont do anything BUT we need to do to move towards more laws.. 10 rounds this year, 7 round (like NY) next time. No semi-autos…

@john Gault - by your anology, I should also be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, such as AK 47s, for home defense, since it is reasonable to assume that home invaders may have access to these weapons…

If you can’t defend your house with a 10 round clip, I doubt a 15 round clip will make a difference. Maybe some target practice would serve you better than an extra 5 shots…

The federal government recently solicited bids for the purchase of (I believe the number was) 70,000 “select-fire” (i.e., fully automatic)rifles with “standard capacity” (i.e., 30 round)magazines. So how come such magazines are “standard capacity” when the government buys them, but transform into “high capacity” magazines, which no one “needs,” on the civilian market?

Woman shoots and hits man 5 times in the head and intruder left the house under his own power. She was using a revolver. Sometimes more bullets are necessary if there had been 2 intruders it is hard to tell how this story would’ve ended.

first its not a clip. sorry. and we could follow the fully auto discussion down a logical path but they have been banned since 1986 from manufacture for anyone but government, so you are creating a strawman there.

BTW, why does a cop need a 15 round mag? or a retired cop? they are excluded from this. You could almost make the argument a cop may have multiple attackers, but so could a civi. But including RETIRED cops who are just regular old civis you tip your hand a bit there.

I think we need a clear, set of federal laws to replace all these various state laws. I am talking about things the public agrees with and that are common sense. (back ground checks, waiting periods, no full auto, limited magazine capabilities, etc.)

The problem is that won’t happen because the NRA spreads a bunch of fear and propaganda. No one is coming after you’re semi-auto, and if some misguided representative is, his bill would never pass. And if it passes, the courts would not overturn them. The supreme court threw out Chicago’s handgun ban. You think they would let a ban on semi-auto’s stand, even if it somehow miraculously passed? Not a chance.

@Ron =we could follow the fully auto discussion down a logical path but they have been banned since 1986 from manufacture for anyone but government, so you are creating a strawman there.=

No Strawman, there are thousands of AKs out there on the streets of the US. Just because the government has a ban on full auto weapons does not mean criminals do not have them. Yes they are illegal, but they are still out there. So my point still stands. by your logic, an AK should be legal for home defense.

@ Kevin Highland - come on dude, that story has no relevance. You said it yourself, she used a revolver. Also, she took care of one intruder with 5 bullets, so if she had a mag with 10 bullets, then she could handle 2 intruders by my math…

As I said in the other post, I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will do absolutely nothing because only the law abiding owners will comply. So why not do something that would actually be meaningful?

Simple - make the use of a high capacity magazine in the commission of a violent crime an aggravating factor subject to additional sentencing requirements.

That way you’d actually be targeting the criminals. That is, of course, if that is the intent of these bills as opposed to simply wanting to strip hardware from lawful owners.

My point was the arbitrary limits on otherwise law abiding citizens will always put them on the handicapped side of the conflict. So the story bears relevance.

Also, it isn’t simple mathematics, it is about allowing law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves in the most effective manner against people who don’t care about the laws and who may be drugged to the point that they can still flee or attack after having been shot multiple times.

And they are not arbitrary limits on law abiding citizens. It’s about holding manufactures responsible for the products they produce. There are tons of assault weapons on the streets that should not be there. Getting rid of them will be hard, but the first step is stopping more from coming on the street in the first place, which requires regulation of the manufacturing and sale of firearms that we currently do not have.

Also, you can go buy a Desert Eagle .50 Legal, and has all the stopping power you need.

@ Ken =Mike, once someone has decided to kill, additional bans and laws become moot.=

Not true at all. It is true that we can’t stop people from committing crimes with guns, but we can limit the amount of killing they are able to do by regulating the weapons they can get a hold of. That’s why Bazookas are illegal

It is really just the basic argument against big government. People pushing a bill when they know nothing about the issue at hand and are not willing to listen to people who do.

There is no significant benefit to limiting the magazine. If you go to a gun store and ask for a recommendation, the salesperson will probably discuss the fact that less capacity mags=ligher guns and are easier to handle and shoot more accurately.

The reality of this situation is that gun control is more about control than guns. It does not work, never has never will.

The reason to be upset is that gun control is a ratchet that only goes one way. The fact is that most of my fellow Democrats, and almost all of our party’s political leaders (no matter how much they say they support the Second Amendment) don’t. Small incremental losses of our freedom, each one seemingly reasonable on its face, lead inevitably to a complete loss of a right. Magazine size restrictions are a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. We must be particularly vigilant when it is a constitutional right which is being eroded. As a Democrat, there are many aspects of the nanny state that I support, universal health care being one of them. Not this one.

@ the Patriot
=people pushing a bill when they know nothing about the issue at hand and are not willing to listen to people who do.=

Who are these people? Certainly not Senator Kotowski or myself.

=The reality of this situation is that gun control is more about control than guns. It does not work, never has never will.=

You are flat out wrong. It has worked great in other countries. We have never had common sense gun laws due to the NRA and gun manufactures lobbying. If you think the Assault Weapons ban was a comprehensive attempt at gun regulation then it is you who knows nothing about the issue at hand.

Gun Regulation has never worked in this country because we have never really tried it in earnest.

You are using the “slippery slope” argument. It is logically flawed (by your logic, we should have already lost the right to bare arms when we lost the right to bare automatic weapons) and there is no evidence to back up your claim. Plus, again, the Supreme court would act as a check on any legislation that would take away your right to bare arms. Get a new argument

What countries would they be? Germany under Hitler? Cambodia under Pol Pot? China under Mao Tse Tung? The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin?Uganda? Mexico? The Congo? Zimbabwe? Somalia? There are too many others to list here, but I think you see the point.

They are not the same parlance. They are completely different things. Only someone that doesn’t know what they are talking about would call a magazine a clip.

I continue to find it amazing that there is such an outcry over an item that is used in crime maybe .05% of the time?

We all agree here that there are millions of extended magazines out there. How often are they used in mass shootings? Twice a year?

The video above demonstrates very clearly that the need to reload doesn’t really make a difference, and the V-Tech shooting shows the death toll can be incredibly high with 10 round magazines.

But again. A fraction of a fraction of a percent of these are used to commit crime, yet BAN EM ALL is the response. Using this logic, it would be far more reasonable to ban vehicles, knives, and blunt objects, all of which carry a similar probability of being misused for violence.

Similiar legislation in other states have had gun manufacturers in those states threatening to move. We have Springfield Armory in Geneseo, IL and they sell 16 round magazines. Are we willing to risk losing jobs in this state for a piece of pointless feel-good legislation?

Quick point. All ak-47s are not fully auto and they are legal as semi-autos. The fully auto are not legal and banned (I believe you can own with a class 3 permit). They are not all out there on the mean streets. I have more than several in my home.

@Ron =we could follow the fully auto discussion down a logical path but they have been banned since 1986 from manufacture for anyone but government, so you are creating a strawman there.=

No Strawman, there are thousands of AKs out there on the streets of the US. Just because the government has a ban on full auto weapons does not mean criminals do not have them. Yes they are illegal, but they are still out there. So my point still stands. by your logic, an AK should be legal for home defense.

Why wouldn’t an AK be legal for home defense? You seem to equate “AK” with an automatic weapon. You do understand the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon? I would think that the overwhelming majority of “AKs” (as in AK-47) in the US are of the semi-automatic variety. Since certainly you and Senator Kotowski know about the issue at hand (and, I suppose, the differences in types of weapons), could you provide some statistics re: the use of automatic weapons in crimes versus the use of semi-automatic weapons in crimes?

- Mike Murray - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:21 pm:

You are using the “slippery slope” argument. It is logically flawed (by your logic, we should have already lost the right to bare arms…)

Whoa, there, fella! I think a person should have the right to wear sleeveless t-shirts no matter what your feelings are! ;-)

I would hold that the difference in crime rates between the countries you named and the US has nothing or next to nothing to do with the availability or unavailability of weapons and everything to do with cultural differences. Besides, you might want to check your stats - I think you’ll find violent crime is up in the UK and Australia, and use of firearms in crime is also up since their draconian bans were put in place.

By the way, I would hardly hold up the UK and Australia as good examples of “common sense gun control”.

“The use of a firearm is already an aggravating factor. Do you really think adding additional time on their sentence because of magazine capacity is going to stop the criminal?”

It makes more sense than thinking that putting more restrictive laws on the books will have any effect in stopping criminals. We’ve already tried that, over and over - let’s try ways of removing the criminals from society as a whole this time.

Demoralized…fine by me. I have Chicago with the strictest gun laws as my proof. Name one nation where gun control has really worked. The fact is, you have to concede gun control does not work, or the people running Chicago are incompetent.

I will make you a deal. I will pick a street in Chicago(with the strictest gun laws) and you can walk it in a red hoodie at 2am sat. You can pick any street in my town(no gun laws) and I will walk it any time.

If you really believe there should be no gun laws then I really have nothing further to say to you on the subject. I would consider that a radically extreme position. I doubt that’s what you really mean.

Look man, you are totally missing the point. I don’t really care if the magazines can hold 15 rounds or even 20 rounds instead of 10 rounds.

The issue here is that this country (and IL) is in desperate need of comprehensive reform of our gun control laws, and we can’t even have an earnest discussion about the issue, (let alone start to formulate any comprehensive reform policy) because whenever we start to discuss any part of gun control issue (like limiting the size of a magazine) all the crazies come out and start comparing gun control in any form to Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Polling shows the majority of the public wants to reform gun control to increase public safety. Yet this vocal, irrational minority of the public (the gun nuts who think the government is trying to take away their guns and freedoms) provides cover for politicians who want to avoid making a powerful lobby enemy (The NRA).

Vote for gun control, and the NRA funds your opponent in the next election. Vote against gun control and oh my lord how the money rolls in…

Where does the NRA get the money for their PAC? It’s not from the rank and file of the NRA membership providing millions in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses, It’s the gun manufacturers.

It’s not a 2nd amendment issue. We already have regulation on firearms. (you can’t own a 50 cal machine gun) No one is talking about banning pistols. And again, if some super liberal government did pass a law banning guns, the courts would overturn it. The outcry against even discussing gun control is not grounded in reality, but rather it is based on some irrational fear of big government taking away our freedoms. No one is taking away your guns or your freedoms. (And if they ever try to, vote them out of office) People like you are giving gun owners like myself a bad reputation and making it harder to address the problem at hand.

That is the point I am making, but of course, my point is worthless because I called a mag a clip in an earlier post…

The statistics that I see places the U.K. as the most violent country in Europe. This stat is from a Britsh newspaper. Is this because unarmed citizens are at the mercy of criminal armed with something besides guns?

From the article you linked:
“There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain’s 921 in 2007.”

Violent crime is not synonymous with gun violence. As was posted earlier, the U.K has much smaller gun violence figures than the US, and that is due to federal gun control.

I live in the city with the toughest gun laws in the entire country. To own a firearm, I need to pay the state, wait months get a background check then get a card in the mail. Then I need to take a 5 hour course, pay the city $115, get fingerprinted, get background checked, then wait a few months. Then I need to go buy a firearm, get background checked, wait 24-72 hours, then register it with the city within 5 days. I can only register one per month at a cost of $15.

I would say a majority of firearms are simply illegal- something as small as a bayonet mount immediately makes a firearm illegal, as do a variety of other purely cosmetic features.

Oh, and obviously no conceal carry.

And after the most intense regulation in the nation, what do we get? Daily shootings and some of the worst gun violence in the country.

“No one is talking about banning pistols”
Um. It took us decades to earn the right to even own a handgun, and we had to take it to the supreme court for that. You best believe if given the chance they would ban them again.

My perspective is simple- We have an incredible test case of what a city looks like under EXTREME gun control. Besides banning all guns, there is very little that can be done to make it stricter. But the results are the same.

We don’t need to have a talk about gun control. We need to have a talk about mental health first and foremost. But what’s easier- treating mental illness or banning pieces of spring loading plastic?

Oh, and the NRA has 5 million members, paying $35 a month. That alone is nearing a quarter of a billion dollars. And sure gun manufacturers help… they tend to be gun enthusiasts as well.

There will ALWAYS be crazy people that get firearms and use them. And if the answer is to punish the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners every time, I hate to see where we are headed. Let’s treat the REAL problem.

@Mike Murray=all the crazies come out and start comparing gun control in any form to Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin=

No one compared gun control in any form to Germany or the Soviet Union. Those and several others were examples in response to your assertion that “You are flat out wrong. It [gun control]has worked great in other countries.” Facts are that gun control as a method to reduce crime does not work. Even in those countries able to strictly control their borders (i.e., England and Australia are islands), criminals still obtain guns. Only the law abiding citizens are disarmed and unable to defend themselves. All the while those politicians who imposed gun control enjoy the benefit of armed security guards.

With regard to your comment: “No one compared gun control in any form to Germany or the Soviet Union.”

I have some bad news. Some crankpot posted the following under your name:

“=You are flat out wrong. It has worked great in other countries.=

What countries would they be? Germany under Hitler? Cambodia under Pol Pot? China under Mao Tse Tung? The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin?Uganda? Mexico? The Congo? Zimbabwe? Somalia? There are too many others to list here, but I think you see the point.”

Hopefully we will to the bottom of this matter. Or maybe there are two retired Army MPs posting.

==all the crazies come out and start comparing gun control in any form to Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin.==

You can call us crazy if you want but a reading of the papers written by the founders makes it pretty clear the 2nd amendment was included to prevent abuses by a tyrannical government. The cited examples are pretty clear cut cases of disarm the populace then do horrible things to said populace.

1.) I am in favor of comprehensive reform of FEDERAL gun control laws. Chicago’s attempt at gun control have filed miserably because criminals can leave Chicago, but guns easily, and return to Chicago. We should scrap all local gun laws on the books and make gun control a federal issue. So while I agree Chicago is not the model to use, I still think we need gun reform.

2.) I said in a previous post that I support concealed carry. You would have to go through some a “hoops”, but I am not gonna just let anyone walk around with a loaded, concealed weapon.

3.) You seemed to to think that I was attributing gun violence in the U.S. primarily to crazy people having firearms when you wrote:

=There will ALWAYS be crazy people that get firearms and use them. And if the answer is to punish the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners every time, I hate to see where we are headed. Let’s treat the REAL problem.=

I believe the real problem is the abundance of unregulated firearms and the ease at which anyone can obtain a firearm. (Sure, the crazy people are the ones who go on shooting sprees, but there is plenty of gun violence not attributed to mentally unstable people)

So here we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the root cause of gun violence in the U.S.

4.) Above in #3, I assumed that you agree with the FACT that the United States has an extremely high rate of gun violence as compared to other nations (even other nations with a lot of guns, like Canada.) Is this correct?

5.) I would like to see where you got the numbers for this:

=Oh, and the NRA has 5 million members, paying $35 a month. =

6.) =“No one is talking about banning pistols”
Um. It took us decades to earn the right to even own a handgun, and we had to take it to the supreme court for that. You best believe if given the chance they would ban them again.=

As, I am sure you know, Chicago tried to take your pistols with it’s handgun ban, and the court stopped them. So you are good now. Legal precedent from the highest court in the land that the government can’t take away your pistols.

7.)Finally, I heard a lot of complaining about the city of Chicago’s EXTREME gun laws, but I did not hear any solutions about what you would do to reduce gun violence in the U.S. besides treating mental illness, which is important and should be part of comprehensive reform. But you can not realistically believe that better diagnosing and treatment of me mental illness will solve the U.S. problem with gun violence.

I know that gun violence is not synonymous with non-gun violence. And that is exactly my point. You do nothing about violence with gun control.

People will find other ways to be violent, either with knives, axes, hammers, ropes, etc. However, the gun is the great equalizer. I would much rather face an axe-wiedling lunatic breaking into my home with my gun rather than with my bare hands.

That’s nice, but that wasn’t what I said. Look up their violent crime rates and their equivalent of home invasion. Look up the stats on how their violent crime and crime with a firearm rates have skyrocketed since their firearm bans. Tell me then how their so-called “common sense” gun control is working.

Poverty and mental illness are the biggest drivers of gun violence. There’s a reason it’s far worse on the South Side of Chicago when compared to the suburbs, down state, or other states. It’s poverty and a lack of education. Those need to be our top priorities. Banning an item that is misused less than a tenth of one percent of the time. Actually, considering we have 270 million guns in America and had ~11,000 murders, .004% of guns are used in murders. 99.996% of firearm owners ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

When you compare us to other countries like Canada, what are the biggest differences? I’ve been to huge cities like Toronto, and they don’t exactly have slums like Chicago.

Poverty and mental illness are our problem. Not the .004% of firearms that are misused.

@John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt:
I have no problem with the NRA lobbying. It’s their right. I just wish they would be honest about who they are lobbying for and why they kill all reform. Cut through the BS and say, “we don’t care about reducing gun violence. Government has no right to regulate our sale of firearms in any way” Instead they use fear mongering (Obama is gonna take your guns!) And try to claim it’s a 2nd amendment issue.

@Kevin =You can call us crazy if you want but a reading of the papers written by the founders makes it pretty clear the 2nd amendment was included to prevent abuses by a tyrannical government. The cited examples are pretty clear cut cases of disarm the populace then do horrible things to said populace.=

First, no one is taking your guns. I think I have said that a bunch. 2nd, none of those countries you cites had over 200 years of democratic tradition and governance. Your fear of the U.S. government turning into a tyrannical dictatorship like Nazi Germany is irrational and it’s what makes you crazy. Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the vast majority of the public does not share your fear. You argue for policy that focuses on preventing a crazy hypothetical that no rational person even thinks about when they try to formulate reasonable gun control legislation.

@Jack

=I know that gun violence is not synonymous with non-gun violence. And that is exactly my point. You do nothing about violence with gun control.=

Actually, it is proven that effective gun control reduces gun violence, which is especially deadly form of… violence.

=People will find other ways to be violent, either with knives, axes, hammers, ropes, etc. However, the gun is the great equalizer. I would much rather face an axe-wiedling lunatic breaking into my home with my gun rather than with my bare hands.=

Lol. Under our current laws, it is more likely that the crazy ax-wielding maniac will have a gun and you will become another victim of gun violence in the U.S.

@ RetiredArmyMP - I can’t believe I watched that ridiculous propaganda video. I want those 2 minutes of my life back…

=Poverty and mental illness are our problem. Not the .004% of firearms that are misused.=

First, poverty and mental illness existed long before we had firearms and I don’t think we can eliminate either one of those problems from our society. So you blamed two societal factor for gun violence without offering a soultion.

The problem is that violent /desperate criminals ( poverty as you put it) and mentally ill people have access to a lot of firepower. In Canada they do not.

I stand corrected - the solicition was for 7,000 weapons, not 70,000. I first saw the soliction several months ago and could not recall the right number. However, the point remains why are fully automatic AR15s with 30 round magazines called “Personal Defense Weapons” with standard capacity magazines when the federal government (Dept of Homeland Security) buys them, but semiautomatic AR15s with 30 round magazines transform into weapons with high capacity magazines designed for mass killing, that no one needs when bought by a private citizen?

@ Retired - “… Facts are that gun control as a method to reduce crime does not work. Even in those countries able to strictly control their borders (i.e., England and Australia are islands), criminals still obtain guns. Only the law abiding citizens are disarmed and unable to defend themselves. All the while those politicians who imposed gun control enjoy the benefit of armed security guards.”

Hyperbole much?

While certainly one of the goals FOR EVERYONE on both sides is reducing crime the point in better gun regulations is to reduce gun deaths.

Every civilzed 1st World country that has enacted strict gun control has seen a drop in gun deaths.

In fact, on the opposite end of the spectrum, America has since a rise in the use of once-banned weapons for gun sprees since Bush and the conservatives let the assault weapons ban sunset.

As far as border security, many of the NRA’s platforms make it easier for criminals and terrorists to get guns INSIDE the U.S. as opposed to outside the U.S. and trying to smuggle them in.

That’s reality. It’s be nice if zealots would practice it a bit more regularly.

That number comes from the amount of guns (270 million) and the number of firearm homicides (~11,000).

We have a 50% population living under the poverty rate in Canada. Canada is also lower in crime in many categories that don’t involve firearms, indicating there are larger social differences at play besides simply firearms.

Although what’s interesting is that crimes that could be deterred by an armed populace are higher in Canada. This includes a 30% higher rate of break ins, double the assault rate, and double the rape rate.

“That’s nice, but that wasn’t what I said. Look up their violent crime rates and their equivalent of home invasion. Look up the stats on how their violent crime and crime with a firearm rates have skyrocketed since their firearm bans. Tell me then how their so-called “common sense” gun control is working.”

If you are claim that something is true and not cite anything to back the claim, assume the rest of us will ignore it.

I believe the point that Mike Murray and the other gun control advocates is missing is that doing small insignificant legislation like limiting magazines to 10 rounds does nothing to combat the root causes of violence.

It is much easier for our government to point fingers at things such as magazines rather than admit that they failed at their primary task of protecting the people.

It is oh so much easier to say, well even though we drove jobs out of the state, thereby increasing poverty and violence, the real culprit is that darned 12 round magazine.

==Every civilzed 1st World country that has enacted strict gun control has seen a drop in gun deaths.==

But have they seen a decrease in overall murders?

==on the opposite end of the spectrum, America has since a rise in the use of once-banned weapons for gun sprees since Bush and the conservatives let the assault weapons ban sunset.==

That assault weapons ban made weapons illegal based on cosmetic features. Remove a cosmetic feature and your banned weapon was legal. The ban had nothing to do with the actual function of the firearm in question.

=It’s cultural, people - you have to fight this by changing the culture of violence. Hardware isn’t the issue.=

Hardware is the issue. That is why you can’t have an automatic weapon or a bazooka. Guns allow violent people to be more violent more easily. You could kill a person with a club or a gun, but you can kill more people with the gun with a lot less effort and risk to yourself. It is totally a hardware issue.

@Logic: All the facts I have seen indicate that federalized gun control reduces levels of gun violence, so I really don’t know what you are talking about…

“If you are claim that something is true and not cite anything to back the claim, assume the rest of us will ignore it.

So why bother posting at all?”

Are you playing tag team here? He’s the one that replied to my post with an off the mark reply. Refer to Jack’s 3:39 and 3:43 if you or he want independent corroboration.

Face it - there’s nothing I or anyone else can post that will convince the antigun hardliners such as yourself. Anything posted that could possibly upset your worldview is parsed to within an inch of oblivion and then ignored. I and others attempt to discuss things rationally from the progun perspective, but a few regular posters here are just lobbing text grenades to show how smart they are and that they were debate team members.

@ Ken - “It’s cultural, people - you have to fight this by changing the culture of violence. Hardware isn’t the issue.”

So does this mean you’re ready to trample on the First Amendment in order to have free rein on the Second?

How else do you “change the culture of violence” if not by banning violent video games and violent shows?

PS - Regardless, they have the same or similarly violent movies, TV and video games in Canada, England, Australia, etc.

They even have the same language and share much the same cultural backgrounds, traditions and legal/governing frameworks.

And yet gun violence is exponentially higher in America than in these other nations.

The only difference is that our gun laws are lax whereas their gun regulations are more reasonable and designed to keep the populace safe from gun violence.

(Our own Constitution does start with little things like insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, among other ideas. It is unclear how continuing to allow such obviously failed lax gun laws does either.)

“Hardware is the issue. That is why you can’t have an automatic weapon or a bazooka. Guns allow violent people to be more violent more easily. You could kill a person with a club or a gun, but you can kill more people with the gun with a lot less effort and risk to yourself. It is totally a hardware issue.”

Mike, have a good afternoon - we’re so far apart on this issue we need a radio to communicate.

@anon - your.004 is way off. The majority of violent gun crime does not result in homicides. (Armed Robbery, for example)

also, you said

=When you take away firearms, criminals have a monopoly on force.=

Again, no one is taking away firearms. We are simply trying to better regulate their killing power, and who has access to them.

@Jack - Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall dude. I posted this already:
Look man, you are totally missing the point. I don’t really care if the magazines can hold 15 rounds or even 20 rounds instead of 10 rounds.

The issue here is that this country (and IL) is in desperate need of comprehensive reform of our gun control laws, and we can’t even have an earnest discussion about the issue, (let alone start to formulate any comprehensive reform policy) because whenever we start to discuss any part of gun control issue (like limiting the size of a magazine) all the crazies come out and start comparing gun control in any form to Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Polling shows the majority of the public wants to reform gun control to increase public safety. Yet this vocal, irrational minority of the public (the gun nuts who think the government is trying to take away their guns and freedoms) provides cover for politicians who want to avoid making a powerful lobby enemy (The NRA).

It’s not a 2nd amendment issue. We already have regulation on firearms. (you can’t own a 50 cal machine gun) No one is talking about banning pistols. And again, if some super liberal government did pass a law banning guns, the courts would overturn it. The outcry against even discussing gun control is not grounded in reality, but rather it is based on some irrational fear of big government taking away our freedoms. No one is taking away your guns or your freedoms. (And if they ever try to, vote them out of office) People like you are giving gun owners like myself a bad reputation and making it harder to address the problem at hand.

I read Jack’s post. Did you read the articles? Did you note the responses?

Jack’s posts offer nothing. In the UK a bar fight with no injuries counts as a violent crime. You can’t compare on broad categories that are defined differently in different legal systems. Jack’s posts prove nothing, and if you read the articles, that would be obvious.

If you posted facts, that may change things.

By the way, I mentioned this in an earlier post and I did not intend to mislead anybody, but HenryVK and “The Much More Patriotic Person” are one and the same.

In a post above, I made a joke about “The Patriot’s” name so I made my name even more patriotic than his name.

“So does this mean you’re ready to trample on the First Amendment in order to have free rein on the Second?

How else do you “change the culture of violence” if not by banning violent video games and violent shows?”

Where the heck did that come from? I’m talking about the long history of violent behavior that has been tolerated in the community. Lock up the violent multiple offenders and start fixing the problem. Rehabilitation of criminals is a fallacy.

Australia saw a small uptick in murders (gun-related or otherwise) by 1999 just after their common sense regulations went into effect.

By 2007 the number of murders was the lowest on record in Australia. The number of gun-related murders was down to only 11% of all homicides by that point. (2007 is the most recent year for Australian stats if this sort. Note that in the U.S. the nRA

@ Ken - “”How else do you “change the culture of violence” if not by banning violent video games and violent shows?””

Where the heck did that come from? I’m talking about the long history of violent behavior that has been tolerated in the community. Lock up the violent multiple offenders and start fixing the problem. Rehabilitation of criminals is a fallacy.”

Really? They never had violent behavior in any other country?

Your own fellow comrades in favor of lax gun laws are citing stats above about how violent Canada is as a reason we shouldn’t have common sense gun regulations here in the U.S.

And if you don’t know that conservatives want to ban the “wrong” kind of entertainment I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

Mike I could say the same about you. The article is about limiting magazines to ten rounds. And you are trying to compare that to a 50 cal machine gun.

Have you ever lifted a 50 cal? I am not worried about a criminal breaking into my house with a 50 cal because most criminals are fairly lazy and I doubt if one would lug it into my house. And it takes a while to set up since you have to attach the barrel, tripod, etc.

So really if you want to debate, please stick to whether a 12 round magazine is really more dangerous than a 10 round.

@Ken
=Mike, have a good afternoon - we’re so far apart on this issue we need a radio to communicate.=

Can you still talk on the radio with your head in the sand? I know its a good way to avoid discussing all the evidence that lax gun control increases rates of gun violence and violent crimes, but it might make talking difficult…

I am not saying that hardware is the only problem. But the hardware, and its widespread availability , is certainly part of the problem. That is a fact you gun nuts refuse to admit.

@ Jack - “It is oh so much easier to say, well even though we drove jobs out of the state, thereby increasing poverty and violence, the real culprit is that darned 12 round magazine.”

and

@ Kevin - “That assault weapons ban made weapons illegal based on cosmetic features. Remove a cosmetic feature and your banned weapon was legal. The ban had nothing to do with the actual function of the firearm in question.”

Two sides of the same coin.

The reason the number of assault weapons used in gun sprees has increased is not because of “cosmetic features.”

It’s not suddenly cooler-looking to kill that many people all at once because of some “cosmetic features.”

It’s easier and faster.

Jared Lochner of Arizona, Adam Lanza of Connecticut, etc. did not kill all those people because of poverty or employment rates in Illinois.

But they were able to kill as many people as they did because of the number of bullets they were able to fit in their legally-purchased magazines.

It’s math — not “cultural issues” or “cosmetic features.”

And, the answer is simple.

Limit the rounds available and you’ll very likely limit the ease with which these criminally insane violent offenders, and criminals in general, are able to kill people.

Lochner was tackled when he tried to change magazines.

Kids were able to run away when Lanza ran out of rounds and had to change magazines.

I recognize your interest in owning guns AND being able to use them. Don’t let your enthusiasm for guns blind you to these basic facts.

You can still enjoy recreational use of your guns. You can still defend your self and your property with your guns.

No one is attempting to criminalize things that you already legally do and legally enjoy doing.

But the Lochners and Lanzas of the world will not be able to kill so many men, women and children so easily.

My goal in all of this — Raoul’s reasonable compromise bill, Kotowski’s common sense magazine bill — is to make it harder, not easier, for criminals to kill children and adults alike, thereby protecting them.

What is your goal?

Our nation’s and our states’ lax gun laws are clearly failing at protecting them. More guns has proven time and again to not be the answer.

Heck, Arizona has among the most lax gun laws in the nation and Lochner was able to do everything he did LEGALLY right up to the point where he aimed his legal guns and fired his legal rounds from his legal magazines into the heads and chests of his fellow citizens.

Moreover, some of his fellow citizens at that scene were also carrying legal guns but were unable to put him down in the mayhem. In fact, they almost shot the wrong people in the mayhem.

@Jack, Can you read? I answered your question. I do not think reducing magazines to 10 rounds is anywhere close to the comprehensive reform we need. And more to the point, I am talking about gun control as a whole and the need for comprehensive reform.

But I will play your game. There is no difference between 10 rounds and 12 rounds, but how about 10 rounds and 30? I would argue the 30 round clip is significantly more lethal. One gun man with 2 guns could fire 60 shots before reloading as opposed to 20 shots.

Mike, you talk like someone could walk into a hardware store and buy a tommy gun. This isn’t the 1930’s. There are plenty of regulations out there to limit hardware and adding to those regulations is not going to solve any problems.

“…and we can’t even have an earnest discussion about the issue”
“Yet this vocal, irrational minority of the public (the gun nuts who think the government is trying to take away their guns and freedoms)…”

Nice way to have an “earnest discussion”. Call those who disagree with you irrational and nuts. Can’t you see that many who call for gun control actually want to take away our guns and in our opinion our freedom? You are either disingenuous or naive if you can’t at least admit that fact.

I have never seen a 30 round pistol magazine, only the common 12 to 16 round ones. Rifles can have larger magazines, but you wouldn’t want to try firing two at the same time unless you are Rambo.

I would offer that a well armored crazy person with 5 ten round magazines could do as much damage as with one 30 round magazine. So maybe you would be better off advocating the restriction of body armor to law enforcement personnel only.

But I as well have other things to do besides hang out here, so the floor is all yours.

I believe this refers to what is commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet, and the associated papers written by the founders as they debated the framing of the constitution. For those interested in the true history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I recommend “The Second Amendment Primer,” a short easy to read book by Les Adams.

I agree the Federalist papers and other documentation of the time illustrated significant concerns about the power of a strong central government (ie, the “Crown” they had just fought off the decade earlier) but that is why 2A declares that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state (state, in this case, literally meaning one of the 13 states).

But the revisionist conservative Supreme Court recently redefined the Constitution and declared that whole milita thing essentially moot. And the gun industry’s’ profits have continued to increase ever since.

It’s a very savvy business model - launder a relatively small amount of your profits into AstroTurf gun “enthusiast” organizations, hire a bunch of no-name “scholars” to make up stuff about the Founding Fathers, get a bunch of scared witless politicians on your dole and convince a highly vocal minority of average joes that their rights are under attack.

Voila! Huge and growing profits and a ton of free publicity from people willing to do whatever your AstroTurf groups tell them to do.

@ Jack - I would offer that if you are would-be victim 6 through 30 it’s easier to tackle a guy when he has to change magazines after 5 rounds than after 30 rounds.

If he’s got 30 shots to kill you your best bet is to hope he misses anything that would cause instant death.

Since you are still with us among the living I’m venturing to guess you’ve never been in a Columbine or Tucson style mass murder.

In both those cases there were armed guards (Columbine) or armed citizens (Tucson). The guard at Columbine missed several times and was pinned down. The citizens in Tucson almost shot the wrong people.

I am really still torn on this issue. I know that the existing gun laws don’t deter violent crime in Chicago, because other factors beside gun availability drive crime. I also know that the people in Newtown were massacred in a matter of minutes. They have rights too.

I also know that banning something will not get rid of it when there is such high demand–see drugs.

The NRA supported expanding background checks in 1999, I believe. Reagan also supported a ban on assault weapons. I don’t remember this kind of outrage back then, but I won’t deny that it happened. I just don’t remember it. I believe that the outrage, at least part of it, has to do with President Obama.

Expanding background checks is supported by almost all voters. Banning assault weapons doesn’t have quite that high of support, but it might still be in the majority.

I had a really bad day today. I fell outside of work and may have completely torn my quadriceps tendon. I spent half the day in the hospital.

Also, RIP to our very own, Ray Manzarek. When the music’s over, turn out the lights.

You’re absolutely right a mag ban at the range is nothing more than an inconvenience. However at 3:am when Oscar is barking up storm and your in your pj’s those extra 6 rnds may make the difference between life and death.

To mentally challenged people who say things like this.

“If you can’t defend your house with a 10 round clip, I doubt a 15 round clip will make a difference. Maybe some target practice would serve you better than an extra 5 shots… ”

Go ask a combat vet what those extra 5 shots may mean.

Here is the point. Usual situation for someone like Rich or most Illinoisans.
You own a gun you go to the range you are a good shot but you’ve never been in the service never received real combat training. Most likely you will be in your PJ’s and were sleeping just a few moments ago. You will be groggy, scared, in disbelief, your hands will be shaking, and you are going to want to Pee yourself. Meanwhile the “target” won’t be standing still 7 yrds away with his hands straight down at his sides. Very good chance he will try to seek cover and shoot at you. Do you really think you are going to be mr. Accurate? Personally i hope your magazine holds one more rnd then you need. Which shouldn’t be a limit set by a politician who never tried to shoot anything harder than a dove. If he ever shot anything.

I was extremely well trained the first time i went into combat and all but the PJ”s and the sleepy part could have described me to a tee. Training took over and kept me alive.

two things people seem to forget.
1. Firearms and parts are a globally traded comodity you can buy them anywhere. Criminals have access to the best smuggling assets the world has ever seen. Want to smuggle a magazine simple toss it in a gas tank drive the car where ever you want pull it out. Even national laws won’t stop criminal access.

2. Criminals have the initiative. The criminal whether burglar, psycho, or crackhead knows exactly when he is going to commit his crime. So he will know to bring extra mags or banned mags obtained from 1. above. Meanwhile his victim if he is armed will most likely only have the one mag in the Firearm. Don’t know many PJ’s with mag pouches.

The writers of the Constitution sought to avoid the creation of a large standing national army. I think that ship has sailed.

At a time of no standing army and no police forces, the well-regulated state militias were to be the peacekeeping instruments of their states, but also the national government in time of trouble.

From Article One, Section Eight (Powers of Congress):

–To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

–To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In 1792, Congress passed a Uniform Militia Act requiring all able-bodied white men to obtain and maintain a musket and enroll in their state militias.

In 1794, Pres. Washington called up and personally led the militia from four states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, armed insurrectionists rebelling against the “tyranny” of federal tax collectors.

“They don’t SAY they want to take all your guns, but Wishbone can see into their souls! Wishbone knows what they really want!”

So you don’t think Mike Bloomberg, or our Rahm Emanuel, or our governor (who I voted for), or even the President and his Vice President (who I voted for twice) would move to eliminate personal possession of firearms if they could? Or Eric Holder or Diane Feinstein or or or? Since I am a liberal (mostly), and spend a lot of time on liberal websites, and discussion groups I have a pretty good idea of where my party’s leadership stands on private firearms, and yeah, they would take them if they could. The fact they don’t come out and say it just shows how smart we Democrats are and why we are the majority party.

The Bill DOES strike a decent, fair, appropriate balance, as Sen. Kotowski pointed out, and I, for one, hope he succeeds and it passes–it’d be another good reason to be proud of Illinois for doing the right thing…!

–So you don’t think Mike Bloomberg, or our Rahm Emanuel, or our governor (who I voted for), or even the President and his Vice President (who I voted for twice) would move to eliminate personal possession of firearms if they could? Or Eric Holder or Diane Feinstein or or or?–

“If” is a powerful word, and I doubt very relevant here.

There are 300 million privately owned firearms. Who would confiscate them and how?

It would be easier to confiscate the cars or TV sets in the country. There are fewer of them, they would be easier to find, and they don’t shoot.

Back in 1969, a presidential commission headed by Milt Eisenhower, Ike’s brother and the former president of John Hopkins, proposed confiscating most handguns and prosecuting those who didn’t comply.

I went to a local gun shop today to get some ammo and a Kimber 1911 and saw a Glock model 17 with a 50 round drum mag. They also had a double drum for 100 rounds. Can you imagine how hot that gun would be if you shot all rounds in a short period? It did look like quite the precision piece, though.

Try to buy a gun in Chicago ruled by my party for like forever. Oh, you can’t, there are no gun stores. The long term goal of many (most?) in the Democratic party (my party) is clearly to demonize and marginalize gun ownership until it is no longer socially acceptable. It is very similar in concept to the Republican party’s long term goal to starve government until they can eliminate virtually all social programs. I can’t believe that anyone thinks that Democrats are supportive of gun ownership in the long term.

Mason, I just might buy your argument about large mags for home defense, BUT…I read pretty widely, including some gun magazines, and I just don’t see stories about homeowners snapping off 10 or 15 rounds defending themselves. Am I just missing them or is that argument really a straw man?

BTW, I think a much more legitimate argument is that in the killings we might really be able to stop, I rarely read about a hail of bullets from a single weapon (and virtually never an “assault weapon”) so I would ask people, just how many of the homicides would this measure stop, and I don’t think its many, if any.

@ wishbone - you can get a gun at several shops w/in 5 miles of Chicago’s borders… and then illegally bring it in. (Well, legally now thanks to the redefinition that the revisionist conservative Supreme Court applied to our Constitution.)

That’s kind of the point on why we need comprehensive common sense gun regulations rather than some really lax areas right next to the more sane areas.

You don’t put out a fire by pouring more gas on it just like you can’t halt gun violence by dumping more guns on the streets.

–

@ Mason - “Here is the point. Usual situation for someone like Rich or most Illinoisans.
You own a gun you go to the range you are a good shot but you’ve never been in the service never received real combat training. Most likely you will be in your PJ’s and were sleeping just a few moments ago. You will be groggy, scared, in disbelief, your hands will be shaking, and you are going to want to Pee yourself. Meanwhile the “target” won’t be standing still 7 yrds away with his hands straight down at his sides. Very good chance he will try to seek cover and shoot at you. Do you really think you are going to be mr. Accurate? Personally i hope your magazine holds one more rnd then you need. ….”

Actually, the usual situation is going to be that Rich would accidentally shoot himself or Oscar the dog or a loved one or someone else he knows.

Even with excellent training and proper care that’s what happens with a gun in the home much more often than any criminals (armed or not) breaking in at 3am while you are home.

Witness the two retired cops who recently accidentally discharged their weapons on school grounds while visiting young students… and the 5-year-old who accidentally killed his 2-year-old sister with his own “kiddy” rifle… in their kitchen.

Much more likely that a gun owner or someone they know will accidentally shoot himself or someone they know whereas if a criminal breaks in they’re much more likely to try to do so at a time when you are not home.

That’s kind of the point of illegally entering someone’s home — you don’t want to get caught.

This measure is just one piece of the puzzle. It will help in the more rare situations like Sandy Hook or Tucson, etc.

But the reality is that just we as a society decided to take lead out of paint and has when we found it to be poisonous and we learned to keep sewage away from our drinking water, we have to recognize that the tools being used in those homicides are guns because they make homicides easy and quick.

Start making it more difficult to obtain guns — as they have in Australia, etc. — and you’ll start to see similar results such as a decrease in not just gun violence but also a decrease in murders overall.

Murders reached a record LOW in Australia in a decade of their national gun laws going into effect.

@ Mr. Wonderful - Most of the gun owners I know are smart enough to see what the problem is and agree with me.

Case in point, @Mike Murray above.

Then again, if you aren’t convinced by seeing 20 1st graders mowed down thanks in significant part to the ease with which our lax gun laws allow such a thing to happen … then there isn’t much hope that you’ll ever recognize these facts.

For some 20 child-sized caskets is just a game that the NRA puts out a week or two after such a tragedy happens in real life (yes, the NRA really did release such a “game” online right after Sandy Hook) or it’s just a “publicity stunt” as one of the chief gun lobbyists in Illinois quipped the other day.

LOL all you want.

Too many other parents — from Connecticut to Chicago to West Virginia to NIU to Columbine to Tucson — no longer can.

Willickers, you’re simply not making any sense here since, if someone agreed with you, they would have surrendered their guns already, which disqualifies them as gun owners, right? It would follow then that Murray is not a “case in point” because he claims to be a gun owner. But then again Murray may be you and you may be Murray.

Good try on the NRA target shooting App, but anyone who has seen it knows there are no coffins, kiddos, or any other references to Newtown associated with it. The app is good clean fun once one figures out how to use it. I recommend trying it on an iPad rather than an iPhone.

Oh, yes, yes, yes, “lax” laws are to blame for Newtown because the GCA of ‘68 doesn’t list bar fly single moms as “prohibited persons.” LOL.

But, in any case, you didn’t answer my question. Again, how do you plan to sell your disarmament scheme to the tens of millions of gun owners who are apparently too stupid to agree with you? I want to hear a real plan from you - not just smarmy lines from the Bishop/Jenkins playbook.

Again, common sense folks see the reality and recognize for what it is.

Regarding lax gun laws - clearly it was far too easy for a deranged young man to get weapons of mass destruction thanks to his mom. She bought everything he used legally.

In fact, the legal gun he used and the legal magazines he used and the legal rounds he used were all quite legal up until the point he killed his mom, a couple of teachers and school admins and 20 young children.

Seems to me there might be some lax laws allowing so much legal activity to make so much illegal carnage so quick and easy.

I just called Dan Kotoski’s office and pointed out the Senator’s statement above regarding grandfathering citizens that currently own these and the contradiction that no such statement resides in SB1002 Intro or Amendments 1-4 on ILGA.GOV.
The staffer confirmed the senator said it but could not tell me where in the bill or where in any of the amendments this grandfather clause exists. They will have to get back to me :) Now I could be overlooking it, if so someone point it out. But the fact that the Senator’s own staff doesn’t know where it is concerns me.

For those just as confused as I, Amendment 2 removes the “effective 90 days…” and removes the “possess” from “sell, purchase, or possess….”

thus In my humble and non-legal opinion immediately it becomes unlawful to deliver, sell, transfer (except an heir), cause to be delivered, sold or transferred …. but not to possess and the only way an individual can possess is if we already own it. For anyone to sell to an IL resident, they would be breaking the law.

This is crazy, I could wake up tomorrow and find that the 70 year old carbine we have could make us illegal since the smallest magazine made for it was 15 rounds, and the manufacture was contracted by the US Govt. and the US Govt sold these to us via CMP!

Johnny’s post is absolutely hilarious for at least two reasons:
1) I thought all you NRA-types were fine law abiding people. Apparently you are not.
2) Trying to act tough and hiding behind some name? “Ooohh, look out for guy making threats who is too much of a coward to post his own name. He’s really really tough.”